NL400 - OTB vs CR - is this Std? - Page 2

On March 08 2010 12:58 phexac wrote: Well, I can certainly see the point of 3-way CR being stronger than HU (though if he is set on CRing his FD, would 3-way really stop him? I mean--people go overboard with FD in so many spots where it's not merited). But as far as sample goes, yes 1.4k is not that big a deal. But specifically check-raise 11/34 times is pretty telling and likely reliable imo. Or is that not enough as well?

like mentioned he could be flatting a lot of strong hands pf here and c/r for value rather than 3betting pre... he could also have just run really hot over this small sample hitting a lot of hands... he could have also tilted really hard one session really skewing the numbers

the point is you can't just assume he is getting out of line here based on that 30% c/r number over such a small sample... now if you had been paying close attention to his game and seen him c/r fold to shove... c/r and give up on later streets... or c/r get to showdown with marginal hand etc etc... we would have much more reason to back up theory he is getting out of line

On March 08 2010 11:25 CirCa wrote: amazing that so many people like you think 1.4k (and less) is a good sample... in any given 1.4k sample i'd say its just as likely for him to have a flop c/r of <10% so yes, he could actually c/r flops a ton... but we don't have enough information to assume that

this X100

On March 08 2010 12:58 phexac wrote: Well, I can certainly see the point of 3-way CR being stronger than HU (though if he is set on CRing his FD, would 3-way really stop him? I mean--people go overboard with FD in so many spots where it's not merited). But as far as sample goes, yes 1.4k is not that big a deal. But specifically check-raise 11/34 times is pretty telling and likely reliable imo. Or is that not enough as well?

stats other than vpip/pfr and a few others really take a much much longer time to converge so use them but don't give them much credit until you really do start getting big big sample sizes. 11/34 gives an indication that he may c/r light but thats about it, he could just as easily be raising only sets.

One thing thats not being acknowledged is that he would probably expect you to stack off on the flop with AK+ or a good draw, given how drawy the board is, so if your range is a weak tp or a weak draw (that bricked the turn) why wouldnt he follow up on his bluff/semibluff¿? Im not saying this is a fist pump get it and I dont have a ton of reads on andrew but Im pretty sure hes not the nit ur making him out to be.

On March 09 2010 09:45 EvilSky wrote: One thing thats not being acknowledged is that he would probably expect you to stack off on the flop with AK+ or a good draw, given how drawy the board is, so if your range is a weak tp or a weak draw (that bricked the turn) why wouldnt he follow up on his bluff/semibluff¿? Im not saying this is a fist pump get it and I dont have a ton of reads on andrew but Im pretty sure hes not the nit ur making him out to be.

-100

Another issue I have with people saying this sample is not significant is that then you are saying, well we have this info, but it's not reliable, so let's act in opposition to what it seems to be telling us, which is that villain is CR flop like it's his job. Then we are actually actively going against the stats we know, which seems like even more shaky logic than relying on stats that we have but that may not be 100% reliable. I mean if we are not using the stats to make our decision, what are we using?

how big is a solid sample size if 1.4k hands is small?

On March 09 2010 13:06 phexac wrote: Another issue I have with people saying this sample is not significant is that then you are saying, well we have this info, but it's not reliable, so let's act in opposition to what it seems to be telling us, which is that villain is CR flop like it's his job. Then we are actually actively going against the stats we know, which seems like even more shaky logic than relying on stats that we have but that may not be 100% reliable. I mean if we are not using the stats to make our decision, what are we using?

the stat should raise alarm bells no question...

but the real question is how has villian seemingly been check raising like crazy "with all sorts of crap" at your tables yet you have given us no single read on the player or situations it has happened in

for example after he raises and is playing oop he could be c/ring a lot of flops rather than cbetting which would greatly influence the stat yet really doesn't apply to this situation the way you might think it does (him calling from blinds and c/r "with all sorts of crap" )

so yes we should definitely take note of the number, and if possible use it to our advantage... but we need to understand why it is what it is... not just assume... this takes paying close attention to your tables

Our sample size here is 34 not 1.4k.

After 1.4k hands his VPIP/PFR have probaly converged quite well, but other stats not. especially stats with only like 34 observations.

Would you feel comfortable making a decision based on 34 hands on a guy that show he is 12/9? after 1000 hands he could be 30/28.

Same applies even more so for stats like CR flop %. You really do need BIG sample sizes to get any kind of accurate representation for them.

To try and give an answer to how big, i dont really know, i guess you would need like 10k+ hands overall before CR% stats start to converge nicely.

edit: and even then its not enough to say with any kind of statisical certainty.

Basically his stats INDICATE that he MAY raise flops light, its up to you to notice spots where he does,to back up the "theory" that the stats show.

So even with bad sample sizes stats can still help, but the smaller the sample size the more you need to rely on your own observations of how he plays.

On March 10 2010 11:58 Critterer wrote: Our sample size here is 34 not 1.4k. After 1.4k hands his VPIP/PFR have probaly converged quite well, but other stats not. especially stats with only like 34 observations. Would you feel comfortable making a decision based on 34 hands on a guy that show he is 12/9? after 1000 hands he could be 30/28. Same applies even more so for stats like CR flop %. You really do need BIG sample sizes to get any kind of accurate representation for them. To try and give an answer to how big, i dont really know, i guess you would need like 10k+ hands overall before CR% stats start to converge nicely. edit: and even then its not enough to say with any kind of statisical certainty. Basically his stats INDICATE that he MAY raise flops light, its up to you to notice spots where he does,to back up the "theory" that the stats show. So even with bad sample sizes stats can still help, but the smaller the sample size the more you need to rely on your own observations of how he plays.

Well my point here is that our stats ARE our observations...